The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. The delete reasons "Delete with prejudice" and "trivializes the Holocaust" are unfounded in Wikipedia policy, resulting in no consensus to delete the former article content. The article has been redirected by its author to Mass killings under Communist regimes, which also moots the deletion rationale "redundant". This status does not seem to be contested, but can be at WP:RFD if necessary.  Sandstein  06:17, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Communist Holocaust (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Original research about a neologism. A yet another highly emotional synonym topic itself is already covered in numerous articles: Communist genocide, communist terrorism, etc. Quite a few scholars and victims of The Holocaust object the (mis)use of the word, like Silicone Holocaust (deleted). - Altenmann >t 19:28, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep (update: strong keep as a redirect). The two terms covered by the article (Red Holocaust and Communist Holocaust) are hardly "original research" or "neologisms", but well established terms used by the United States government, several notable books published by leading academic presses, and other scholarly works, and in public discourse for at least two decades (possibly longer). The terms in themselves have also been the subject of much debate, just search for the two terms Red Holocaust or Communist Holocaust or their German or French equivalents. Virgil Lasis (talk) 04:31, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just some examples of the usage of the term (several others can be found)

• Rosefielde, Steven (2009). Red Holocaust. Routledge. ISBN 978-0-415-77757-5.
• Möller, Horst (1999). Der rote Holocaust und die Deutschen. Die Debatte um das 'Schwarzbuch des Kommunismus' [The Red Holocaust and the Germans: The Debate over the Black Book of Communism]. Piper Verlag. ISBN 978-3492041195.
• The term Communist Holocaust is used by an Act of Congress (1993) establishing the Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation
• The term Communist holocaust is also used by the Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation itself, an educational organization established and funded by the United States Congress[1]
• A book critical of the term, titled 'Roter Holocaust'? Kritik des Schwarzbuchs des Kommunismus ("Red Holocaust?") was published already in 1998[2] - and still some users pretend the term doesn't exist. Amazing.

That is not correct. If you want to read H.R. 3000 from 1993, here it is but you will not find any use of that phrase by the U.S. Congress. Mandsford (talk) 14:27, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above is incorrect. Your link is not relevant. The source has already been pointed out at the talk page. It is even referred to in the introduction to the Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation article. Virgil Lasis (talk) 09:04, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• On second thought, a redirect to Mass killings under Communist regimes could be appropriate if the terms were discussed, and mentioned in the lead section, of that article. Virgil Lasis (talk) 06:03, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm implementing this right ahead. For the record, the original article under discussion. Virgil Lasis (talk) 06:24, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete with prejudice. (Igny (talk) 12:53, 29 January 2010 (UTC))[reply]
• Delete The term trivializes the Holocaust and use of the term is therefore widely considered to be implicitly anti-Semitic. The Four Deuces (talk) 16:05, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not censored ("being objectionable" is generally not sufficient grounds for removal of content). The only thing that matter is whether the term is an established term, not your personal opinion of it (which many would disagree with). Virgil Lasis (talk) 12:37, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as redundant. I don't see how can it add anything new to the subject. "Communist Holocaust", or "Red Holocaust" are some allegoric terms used (very infrequently by scholars, and more frequently by politicians and journalists) to describe repressions, executions, deportations and famines under some Communist regimes. That is what the article "Mass killings under Communist regimes" is already doing.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:12, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • At the time you wrote this, the article was a redirect to Mass killings under Communist regimes. So what are you actually voting to delete? Apparently, you acknowledge that the term is used "more frequently by politicians and journalists". If the usage of a term is established, there is no need to delete a redirect. Virgil Lasis (talk) 12:34, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Although I can see the argument for a redirect as a search term, I have to emphasize that "holocaust" is not a synonym for genocide. Strictly speaking, a holocaust is a totally destructive fire. Thus, it has been a word used to describe nuclear war, as well as the Nazi vision of destroying a race so thoroughly that all traces were burned to ashes. The phrase came into general use in 1961 when Adolf Eichmann was prosecuted by Israel. I agree that it is offensive to use this as a buzzword when one can't think of another word for mass murder. Mandsford (talk) 20:40, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't follow your argument. The question should not be what Wikipedia users agree with, but whether a term is sufficiently established to be a redirect. A term used by the Unites States Congress and several other sources certainly is. Virgil Lasis (talk) 09:40, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but the term was NOT "used by the United States Congress". Congress voted money in 1993 to establish the Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation, and 16 years later, the foundation's public relations person carelessly used the phrase on the foundation's webpage. To me, it would be just as offensive to toss the phrases "Cultural Revolution" or "Killing Fields" or "gulag" as synonyms for a campaign of terror or extermination. Mandsford (talk) 14:09, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are mistaken. For starters, you could read our own article on the Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation. Virgil Lasis (talk) 09:20, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: This discussion is becoming confusing. I created this article before I was aware of the existence of Mass killings under Communist regimes. I have already redirected the article to that article. Note that some of the users commenting above seem to be primarly engaged in pushing communist POV at the mentioned article. There is no need for continued debate on whether Communist Holocaust should be kept as a separate article. If someone wants to delete the redirects, they should nominate the redirects as such. Of course, there is no prospect of the redirects being deleted as they are extremely established and widely used terms, used by the United States government, numerous scholarly works and in public discourse. Virgil Lasis (talk) 09:37, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, of course. And, of course, those of us who are disagree with you are "primarily engaged in pushing communist POV", right? Again, this term is not "used by the U.S. government". As a book search shows, where it is used at all (and as others have demonstrated it is not "widely used"), it's frequently (not always, but often enough) called the "Jewish Communist Holocaust" [3] with the idea being that Jews in the Soviet Union participated in the atrocities there, wherefore the victims of the Holocaust had it coming to them. The disambiguation page for red holocaust (referred to below) is somewhat different, in that there was a best selling paperback and a later book with that title. You can argue all you want to that this should be approved as an encyclopedia entry (in the form of "Communist Holocaust", see "Mass killings..."). But we don't make redirects for every possible phrase that a person can think of. Mandsford (talk) 14:17, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid you are mistaken. We make redirects from established terms. End of story. If you don't like it, get yourself your own website. This is an encyclopedia. Virgil Lasis (talk) 09:06, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure that you are at the right site? Please be WP:CIVIL to your fellow editors. (Igny (talk) 15:25, 31 January 2010 (UTC))[reply]

• Comment: The same reasoning for deletion or keeping should be applied to Red holocaust redirect. Nevermind, it is a disambig now. (Igny (talk) 11:33, 30 January 2010 (UTC))[reply]

• Comment (in bold to draw attention). I have rewritten Red Holocaust, and one possible solution is to redirect Communist genocide and Communist holocaust there and basically write a short article on usage of these terms. Even though these terms are not defined to be mass killings under Communist regimes, they may be notable enough to write an article on their usage. We could focus on who and under what circumstances used these terms, criticism of such usage etc. (Igny (talk) 01:29, 31 January 2010 (UTC))[reply]
  • I find it strange that you would create an article on exactly the same topic while this former article is strangely enough still considered for deletion. The article on mass killings under communist regimes clearly is intended to cover all deaths that were result of repressive communist policies. Perhaps the article needs a better title. Virgil Lasis (talk) 08:59, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. POV junk. Everyking (talk) 07:15, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • A redirect from a term used by the United States government can hardly be "POV junk". Also familiarize yourself with Wikipedia:No personal attacks, Wikipedia:Etiquette Wikipedia:NPOV. This is an encyclopedia, not a place to push your own POV. Virgil Lasis (talk) 08:56, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So far as I can tell, User:Everyking has not made a "personal attack" against anybody, nor breached any rule of etiquette. Mandsford (talk) 16:22, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As per User:Igny's comment, I would also like to draw attention to Talk:Red Holocaust, a discussion of an identical article (i.e. an article on the terms Red Holocaust and Communist Holocaust) that created by Igny. I don't object to the creation of an article on the terms Red Holocaust and Communist Holocaust, of course - the article being discussed here was such an article until it became a redirect to Mass killings under Communist regimes. Virgil Lasis (talk) 12:28, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Notable political term. Defender of torch (talk) 11:05, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.